Page 92 of

International Journal of Heritage, Tourism and Hospitality Vol. (11), No. (3/2)

Special issue on papers of the 10th

ICTH (2017) organized by Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Fayoum University

67

Hotel Managers’ Perception of the Internal Environment for Innovation: The Case of

Egyptian Hotels

Karam Gomaa Mohamed Zaki

Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Fayoum University

Abstract

For many individuals the term innovation stands for success and something new in our lives.

Some might think of their first smart phones, others of using solar panels on their roof. But

innovation is so much more; it moves our society forward especially in case of the high market

competition.

Innovation has not attracted fair attention in the Egyptian hotel industry, as it is difficult to

measure. Hence, this work developed first a theoretical model of innovation determinants and

outcomes, to help the hotel managers and executives to better manage innovation especially in

cases of competition and recession periods. The theoretical foundations of this conceptual

framework are based on the Attitude–behaviour theory. Second, this research highlighted the

importance of perceived innovation among a sample of hotel managers in Cairo and Sharm El-

Sheikh based in Egypt. Furthermore, new determinants and key indicators to the innovation in

hotels (work-life balance; usage of sustainability indicators; innovation importance knowledge;

demographic factors) were first, to date, researched and examined in the Egyptian hotel sector in

relation to the perceived innovation and innovation success.

The researcher distributed a self-administered questionnaire to a sample of 450 hotel managers in

55 Egyptian five-star hotels based in Cairo and Sharm El-Sheikh. The current research tested

hypotheses using the Structure equation modelling (SEM) and the analysis of regression

performed by AMOS software 20.

The results revealed that the key determinants of innovation such as work-life balance, key

sustainable indicators usage, innovation importance knowledge and some demographic factors

(marital status, gender, level of education and age) had an effect on the perceived innovation

construct and business success afterwards. In addition, hotel managers experienced significantly

differences in innovation according to some demographic characteristics. Implications for

practice are discussed as well as future research scenes are offered.

Keywords: Innovation, Egyptian hotel managers, critical success factors, business success,

demographic characteristics

Introduction

Innovation seems to be a multidimensional concept that means of any new ideas, products,

systems or processes. It means as well the development of products or services, system, process

or any organizational forms. Innovation may occur in the management structure of any

organization or in the way it markets their products or services (Schumpeter, 1951; Omerzel,

2016).

The daily hotel issues highlight the concept of innovation in many different ways. Product or

service innovation comes to develop and introduce the new creative goods or services. An

example of that type of innovation may consider the day use option instead of the night selection

in hotel occupancy due to the cost of accommodation to the customer who would like to entertain

and use the hotel facilities according to their budget especially in the inflation that has been

witnessed in Egypt.




68

Innovation practices in hotels encompass the introduction of new methods; the opening of new

market; the use of sustainable resources and organic materials in production; the development of

the structure and the management style.

Considering the resource based view theory, to achieve the competitive advantage any

organization should determine its critical success factors or the whole system consequences and

determinants to best use its resources in innovative way (Kozlenkova et al., 2014). Pervious

research guaranteed the relationship link between innovation and the competitiveness and

business success (Omerzel, 2016).

Despite of the importance of innovation in hospitality context and the more attention from both

practitioners and researchers that received, this issue still needs more investigation due to the

lacking literature on innovation in tourism in general as recently declared by Omerzel (2016) in

his systematic review article published in the international journal of contemporary hospitality

management. He noticed that innovation as a title in the international publications grows

dramatically since it has been a few number of published papers counted on one hand in the

1990s and suddenly grows to ten times by the year 2014.

Once again the innovation concept was not fully empirically tested neither in the hospitality nor

in the hotels sector which push the researchers to understand this concept in an isolated ways as

highlighted by Gopalakrishnan and Damanpour (1997).Therefore getting the consensus of the

meaning of innovation did not achieved yet so far.

The main problem of innovation research in hotels merely appears in the diversity of the

affecting factors and the interconnections among many determinants and the shortcomings of

complete models conceptualize the innovation causes and effects as well (Anderson et al., 2014).

The hotel industry is characterized by its labour intensive and provides intangible services to

customers. One of the main problems for service providers sectors, such as hotels, is the highly

renewable customer expectations, so higher levels of innovation even in the product or the

process would gain successful outputs. As a result, studying innovation is likely to be of major

interest in the hotel industry and its measurement is an interesting aspect of operational

management performance. Staff attitudes toward perceived innovation measurement in hotels are

considered the best way to deliver competitiveness and success.

Strangely to say that from 2005 till now, there is a little research has been done in the context of

innovation based in hotels over the globe in general and in Africa particularly (only six published

papers) according to Omerzel (2016). However this research hopes to shed the light on this

substantial issue in the Egyptian hotel service.

The hotel management research does not offer a suitable model for measuring innovation based

on perceived measures. To the best of our understanding, the main reason for this is the complex

and dynamic nature of measuring innovation in the hospitality context and the unique

characteristics of its services, especially in relation to intangibility and inseparability( Brown et

al., 2011). The proposed model ( Figure 2) here is based on the resource based view theory of

Barney (1991) since the innovation may help hotels reaching and sustaining higher competitive

standards whatever the competitors steal or copy the new developed ideas or not as argued by

Weidenfeld (2013) who raised this challenge to innovate because of service process is highly

visible and difficult to cover the creative ideas behind the scenes of others.

Despite its probable importance, innovation has not attracted much attention in the Egyptian

hotel industry, as it is difficult to measure. Hence, this article develops first a conceptual model

of innovation (Figure 2) determinants and outcomes to help hotel managers to better manage

innovation especially in cases of competition and recession periods. The theoretical foundations




69

of this conceptual framework are based on the Attitude –behaviour of Ajzen and Fishbein (1980)

theory , which maintains that work attitudes are shaped from people beliefs and the working

environment situations. Second, this research highlighted the importance of perceived innovation

among a sample of hotel managers in Cairo and Sharm El Sheikh based in Egypt. Furthermore

new determinants and indicators to the innovation in hotels (work-life balance; usage of

sustainability indicators; innovation importance knowledge; demographic factors) were first, to

date, researched and examined in the Egyptian hotel sector in relation to the perceived

innovation and innovation success.

Literature Review

According to Schwarzkopf (2016) the term innovation connected with progress, success and

anything new. Creativity appears in the first iPhone, solar panels and many new ideas.

Innovation is so much more creative things; it moves societies forward, however it brings also

new challenges. It keeps mankind in a continuous competition for customer demand.

The historical background of the innovation concept has been indicated in many previous

research (Johnson, 2001; Anderson et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2017). Innovation concept comes

from the Latin verb innovare which means creating or renewing something (Anderson et al.,

2014). The Webster dictionary definition of innovation word is to introduce anything new such

as methods, ideas, products (Mish, 1986).

The first foundations of the word innovation has been originated in some Latin Church texts of

Tertullian around 200 BC and Augustin around 400 BC with the meaning of renewal and change

(Muller and Zenker, 2001). Shakespeare used the word innovation in the political change context

in full chapter about entrepreneurship as reported by Muller and Zenker (2001).

Today our understanding of the innovation concept in a more practical and financial logic has

been mainly moulded by Schumpeter in the twenties century, and probably also influenced by

Machiavelli (Schumpeter, 1951).

Johnson (2001) highlighted to invention and innovation concepts get mixed up or are used

similar. However, modern research, especially Schumpeter, clearly distinguishes between an

invention and innovation, with the former being part of the latter. The missing element is

implementation in a market. Schumpeter sees innovation combining factors in a new way and

bringing them to life or converting the invention into the market (Schumpeter, 1951).

Leonardo da Vinci is often regarded as the chief inventor in the world, and he can serve to

simplify the difference between invention and innovation concepts. Leonardo’s inventions such

as airplane prototypes or robotic knights had never been implemented during his life, and thus

never be in use. Times later, societies may have been stimulated by his thoughts and inventions

to implement them and make them an innovation. This is the principle of Schumpeter, that it

takes other individuals or the business entrepreneurs to truly implement the new inventions and

ideas (Schwarzkopf ,2016).

Davila, et al. (2006) highlighted that Innovation involved any type of change to the following

components of either the business model (value, supply chain, intended customer) or in

technology which appears in products or services or the process as shown in (Figure1).




70

Figure 1: The six levers of innovation

. Source: (Davila et al., 2006).

Davila, et al. (2006) further confirmed that the innovation types are incremental, the semi-radical

and radical. The incremental innovation achieves small progress to the current products, services

and business processes. It can be understood of as an example in problem-solving where the

target aim is clear but how to reach it wants to be solved. While, the radical innovation leads to

new ideas delivered in completely novel techniques. It can be understood of as an example in

exploration where there might be somewhat significant in a specific way but what will be found

is mysterious. In order to select the suitable type of innovation, it is compulsory to realize the

features of each type and when to use it.

Many authors obviously indicated that the innovation concept is not simple and has been

considered an important issue in ages, with many meanings and much more efforts to describe

this concept. Johnson (2001) declared that there is no consensus on the meaning of innovation

especially in services. Nevertheless, there is little research on innovation in the service sector so

far (Kessler et al., 2015).

Innovation in hotels is defined as the process of creation any changes to a traditional something

by introducing somewhat new that brings value to the customers (O’Sullivan and Dooley, 2008).

Many research on innovation has been done in manufacturing and other businesses , while in

services the term comes too late (Omerzel, 2016).

Almost all the definitions of innovation contained some basic foundations about the newness or

the novelty. This might not only mean something new to the business rather than something

more radical and supports a change. Innovation is related too much with the fast development of

the hospitality industry over the past 50 years since it has been noticed the new hotel brands,

companies and chains worldwide.

Many authors agreed that innovation leads to a competitive advantage and consequently of

performance and success either in manufacturing (Anderson et al., 2014; Omerzel, 2016) or in

the service context (Orfila-Sintes et al., 2005; Hjalager, 2010; Campo et al., 2014; Pikkemaat and

Zehrer, 2016) .

Hotels could be considered innovative once their features has been involved new development of

idea creation, organizational learning and performing or leading change which might happens in

one of four dimensions as reported by Anthonisz (2014): first, the product innovation which has

changes in the hotel products or the offered services to the target customer; second, process

innovation that has changes in the way in which products or services are created and delivered;

third, position innovation which means variations in the context in which products or services are




71

introduced; forth, paradigm innovation which has changes in the underlying mental models

which structure the purpose of any organization.

This previous literature leaded the researcher to the first hypothesis which is:

Hypothesis 1: Perceived innovation is a multidimensional concept.

The main problem of Innovation as reported by Anthonisz (2014) in the hotel industry has

frequently been criticized for its absence of innovation.

Artič (2013) indicated that innovation is predictable if an organization needs to continue in the

market, and nevertheless the hospitality context still seems to be lagging behind, mostly in

relation to more inclusive and radical innovations. This can moderately be clarified by putting a

substantial emphasis on effective everyday processes, and consequently, very limited numbers of

hotels have unique processes or sections for innovation in services that they offer to the guest.

Starwood and Marriot are examples cited in Jayawardena et al. (2013) that has an innovation

division while others has not. However, recently the hotel industry has made considerable

movements into the development of a number of innovation types aimed at enhancing the

customer service, making operational competences and increasing more sustainable

methodologies. Furthermore, three key factors of extreme competition, the need for a unique

marketing and the very challenging customer needs have raised innovation to the top priories

(Jayawardena et al., 2013).

The potential impact of innovation on the hotel industry is that they will rely on a technology-

based environment, much of which may be unseen to the guest such as sustainable energy of

heating, air conditioning, air quality and the LED lighting usage, but also the way in which

customers are recognized on their arrival so the entire check-in process could change (Sloan et

al., 2013).

Campo et al. (2014) counted the key innovations observed in the hotel industry mainly in

technology and key sustainability indicators such as: the use of integrated management systems;

automatic check-ins; radio-frequency identification tags used in laundries and automatic uniform

dispensing; hotel lobbies as fully integrated social media applications with access to tablets,

headphones, touch screens; and iPads in the hotel rooms that provide the customer with the

freedom to select the lighting, heating, request the in house room service by just a button click.

For the most part, the use of innovative key sustainability indicators has been the biggest

contributor to streamlining hotel operations that affect the innovation activity and afterwards

enhancing the guest experience. These devices and applications are changing the traditional

revenue-generating landscape for hotel owners and operators who have no choice but to adapt

because many of their customers have already incorporated these new technologies into their day

to day lives.

Innovations in sector are tenuous since now we are facing economic crisis, the benefits of

innovation on hotel industry could be used to overcome the crisis (Bilgihan and Nejad, 2015).

This previous literature leaded the researcher to the second hypothesis which is:

Hypothesis 2: Usage of sustainability indictors (Ksi) has a positive effect on the perceived

innovation.

Many research outlined the outcomes of innovation especially innovation success and firm

performance success. The organizational innovativeness is a precondition for the successful

implementation of innovation and the innovation success consequently contributes to business

success (Omerzel, 2016). In terms of innovation success, innovation research usually

distinguishes between product innovations (e.g. the number of innovations and their contribution

to revenue or profit) and process innovations (usually cost-saving measures) as indicators of the




72

success of innovation at the corporate level (Nieves and Diaz-Meneses, 2016). Business success

are measured by financial as well as non-financial indicators as reported by Chen et al. (2017).

There are three key indicators of overall organizational performance to evaluate the success of

innovations implemented in the hotel industry: market success, financial success and employee-

related success (Kessler et al., 2015).

According to Vila et al. ( 2012) hotel staff perception of innovation is highly related to their

knowledge and awareness level of the potential outcomes of innovation .

The attitude-behaviour theory of Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) entailed persons that hold attitudes

in their working location, this attitude affects their behaviours. The individual’s attitudes

represent their favourable or unfavourable evaluation of the specific realm. It is expected that

favourable attitudes are linked to good behaviours and vice versa. According to this theoretical

foundation the rational for the third hypothesis of this research is presented as following:

Hypothesis 3: Innovation importance knowledge (Ik) has a positive effect on the perceived

innovation.

The lack of comprehensive conceptual models about innovation in the hotel industry in general

and in the Egyptian hotel sector in particular guided this research to offer a modest effort to fill

this gab in the literature by providing the following theoretical framework (Figure 2) based on

the attitude-behaviour theory and resource based view theory. This research conceptual

framework incorporates the key determinants of innovation and its consequences. Most of the

internal and external environment factors that shape the predictors of innovation such as:

organizational factors; marketing; technology were empirically tested in previous research in

relation to the dependent factor of business performance with the mediating role innovation. The

main context of this research is the bulleted rectangular as shown in Figure (2) because these

stimulus factors were rarely tested empirically in the Egyptian hotel sector as well as

incorporating all of the conceptual framework herein needs further validations and much effort to

collect the data from the field which is beyond the researcher ability.

Providing a measurement method for innovation in hotels depends on a clear model of how

innovation is managed and how new ideas are created, evaluated and selected, and transformed

into business value.

Noteworthy this research highlighted the relationship between work- life balance and the

perceived innovation.

The interest in studying work-life balance is increasing according to Harrington and Ladge

(2009). It is extensively accepted by academics that the work-life balance is connected with

desired consequences in the work environment. Despite this increased interest and these

favorable outcomes of work-life balance, little studies have directly linked it with outcomes.

Also, several scholars have pointed out that the effect of work-life balance on employees’

attitudes and behaviors is still unclear and have called for more in-depth research (Dex and

Bond, 2005).

Kim (2014) found that many studies were limited to clarify what effect work-life balance can

have in changing employees’ attitudes and behavior. Moreover, he further stated that the work-

life balance research were carried out in the developed countries categorized as having a personal

society may show results different from those of studies in developing countries such as Egypt,

characterized as a different society (Clark, 2000).

Work-family balance is defined by the level of satisfaction and good performing in the work

environment and at home without any conflict. This research sought that work-life balance leads

to attitude of innovation as agreed with Kim (2014).




73

Figure 2: The research conceptual framework demonstrating relationships among concerned

variables

Several empirical studies have showed that the experience of work-life balance is positively

related to organizational performance. Definitely, work-life balance has been shown to have

constructive consequences, such as low turnover intention, improvement of performance, and job

satisfaction (Kim, 2014).

Finally two other hypotheses were formulated based on the key findings from the conceptual

framework and in the light of the previous related literature as follows:

Hypothesis 4: Work-life balance (W) has a positive effect on the perceived innovation.

Hypothesis 5: The perceived innovation is affected by the demographic factors of (age, gender,

marital status, level of education).

Research Design

This research is based on the Egyptian five –star hotels that supposed to be excellent service

provider and works in a highly competitive and innovative environment that suite the main scope

of this work. Two main tourism destinations were selected to be the sampling frame. The down

town Cairo which is the capital of Egypt and the Sharm El-Sheikh which is considered the most

beautiful destination in Egypt were selected from Egypt. The aim of selecting two samples is to

capture the variability of interpreting the results and to provide more external validity to the

obtained results (Walsh et al., 2015). As well as, these two cities are considered the best civilised

downtown regions in Egypt with the largest number of five-star hotels (Mohamed, 2015).




74

According to the EHA (2016), the total number of the hotel population in Cairo is 33 five-star

hotels and 43 hotels in Sharm El-Sheikh. The researcher contacted all the management of these

hotels to explain the aim of this research so as to get permission to distribute the research

questionnaire. The total number of the accepted hotels to participate was 55 hotels 30 of them in

Cairo and 25 from Sharm El-Sheikh representing about 72% response rate. The total number of

the hotel managers in the 55 participated hotels was 2720 based on the information obtained

from the hotel key respondents. The researcher distributed 500 surveys using the simple random

sampling since the total population is homogenous which constitutes 18% sample percent that is

accepted according to Gay and Diehl (1992). The total number of and returned questionnaires

were 450 yielding very positive response rate of 90 percent. Considering incorporating nearly all

the hotel sections in the sample was performed to represent all job classifications and the

characteristics of the target population. Piloting was performed on a sample of 50 managers to

test the questionnaire instrument. Pilot test results were guaranteed fully understanding of all

participated respondents to the research variables.

The designed questionnaire involved three sections (Appendix1).First section contains a cover

letter to explain the purpose of the survey, key contact information, and general directions

followed by four questions about the demographic data of (age, gender, marital status and the

level of education). The second section designed to get the respondent perceptions on the

innovation behaviour in the hotel. The innovation behaviour measures were developed based on

reliable and valid scales of previous researchers such as:(Schumpeter, 1951; Hjalager, 2010;

Badewi, 2016; Nieves and Diaz-Meneses, 2016; Omerzel, 2016; Sen and Kaushik, 2016) with

some wording alteration to match with the research purposes. All research constructs were

measured by the use of a 5-point Likert-type scale in which 1= (strongly disagree) and 5=

(strongly agree).

The third section contained the four constructs of the innovation determinants that are suitable to

the hotel operations: work-life balance, key sustainable indicators, innovation importance

knowledge and the demographic factors.

Considering the first subscale of work - life balance in which seven statements have been

constituted its scale according to the literature of (McCarraher and Daniels, 2000; McCarthy,

2001; Dex and Bond, 2005; Kim, 2014) with some amendments. Key sustainable indicators were

measured through six well developed and validated sub scales (four items about energy, eight

items represent the waste, six items for water, three items of sustainable food, five measures for

corporate social responsibility and five items related to greening schemes).The sustainable

indicators were finally composed from 31 questionnaire items according to previous research of

(Sloan et al., 2009; Zientara et al., 2010; Winroth et al., 2012; Zhang and Chin, 2012). Thirdly,

the innovation importance knowledge construct was measured through six items modified from

previous studies (Orfila-Sintes et al., 2005; Orfila-Sintes and Mattsson, 2009; Vila et al., 2012;

Omerzel, 2016) to evaluate respondents understanding about the benefits of innovation.

Questionnaire analysis was performed through three stages of analysis: first, preliminary analysis

of screening the data prior to analysis; second, descriptive analysis; third, multivariate analysis.

Preliminary analysis aims at establishing and testing necessary conditions prior to multivariate

analysis. By investigating data issues such as addressing missing data, dealing with outliers,

normality test, multicollinearity, linearity, and homoscedasticity. Preliminary analysis also

included sample size and sample bias to measure the differences between groups or variables

(e.g. T-test).




75

The second stage was concerned with some descriptive analysis, which included: some central

tendency measures; variability (dispersion) measures; and some information concerning the

distribution of scores. The third stage included multivariate analysis such as reliability, factor

analysis were employed to test the used items reliability, validity and dimensionality.

Furthermore, structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to test constructs dimensionality and

to investigate the relationship between variables of the measurement model. The multivariate

analysis techniques employed in the current research was exploratory factor analysis (EFA),

confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and SEM using SPSS 22 and AMOS 20.

Results and discussions

The respondents’ demographic profile

The following Table (1) indicated the individual characteristics of the hotel participants. It is

noted that the participated hotels from Cairo was almost three quarters of the whole population

67% while 33% was devoted to Sharm El-sheikh hotels. The majority of the respondents were

males with 91% and 9 % were for females. The majority of the respondents were the hotel

executives whether managers or assistants of 63% and 37 were for the supervisors. Management

and front of the house departments reported about 80 %, while about 20 % were from the back of

the house. The older staff participated was merely 7%, while 93% of the sample was junior staff

aged from 20-44 years. The level of education among respondents revealed that more than the

half had professional qualifications and about a quarter of them fortunately had post graduate

certifications. Married respondents indicated 44% followed by single (26%), divorced (22%) and

(8%) for widowed respectively.

Table 1: Respondent characteristics (N=450)

Characteristics Frequency Percent

Hotel Sample Cairo 300 67

Sharm El-Sheikh 150 33

Department Front Office 202 45

Food &Beverage 64 14

Conventions 27 6

Housekeeping 74 16

Back of the house 83 18

Age 20-34 351 78

35-44 69 15.3

45-55 30 6.7

Education Secondary school 28 6.2

College Diploma / Professional

qualifications

254 56.4

Undergraduate degree 41 9.1

Postgraduate degree 127 28.2

Experience Less than one year 54 12

1 to 2 years 193 43

3 to 5 years 63 14

6 to 10 years 130 29

More than 11 years 10 2

Position Manager 148 33




76

Assistant Manager 136 30

Supervisor 166 37

Gender Male 408 91

Female 42 9

Marital status Single 118 26

Married 200 44

Widowed 35 8

divorced 97 22 -

Table (2) showed the descriptive statistics that were implemented to obtain the mean scores,

standard deviation, variance and percent of the questionnaire items.

The mean score for the overall perceived innovation behaviour (3.9) ranging from 1.5 which is

considered very low to the item (the hotel invests in the development of new products) to 4.5 for

the item of (We often are the first to introduce a new product (service) to the market). This

contradiction was agreed previously by Orfila-Sintes and Mattsson (2009) who declared that

investments in innovation in manufacturing is more than in services because the management do

not need to register their new products or to pay for patents in service sector.

Table 2: The descriptive statistics (N=450)

Mean Std.

Deviation

Variance Cronbach's

Alpha

1. Perceived innovation behaviour. 3.9 0.7 0.5 0.83

i1 4.5 0.8 0.7

i2 4.1 0.9 0.8

i3 4.3 0.8 0.7

i4 1.5 1.1 1.2

i5 3.9 0.9 0.7

i6 3.9 1.0 1.1

i7 4.2 0.8 0.6

i8 4.0 1.0 0.9

i9 4.0 1.1 1.1

i10 4.0 1.0 1.0

i11 4.0 0.7 0.5

i12 3.8 0.7 0.6

i13 3.8 0.8 0.7

i14 3.9 0.9 0.7

i15 4.2 1.0 1.0

2. Work –life balance scale

measures

4.4 0.1 0.02 0.74

W1 4.1 0.9 0.8

W2 3.9 0.8 0.7

W3 3.9 0.9 0.9

W4 4.2 0.8 0.6




77

W5 4.2 0.8 0.6

W6 3.9 0.9 0.8

W7 3.9 0.8 0.7

3. Usage of sustainability indicators

3.1 Energy 3.9 0.2 0.05 0.52

Ksi1 3.9 0.9 0.8

Ksi2 3.6 1.0 1.0

Ksi3 4.1 0.9 0.8

Ksi4 3.8 0.8 0.7

3.2 Waste 3.8 0.2 0.03 0.87

Ksi5 3.7 1.0 1.0

Ksi6 3.7 0.8 0.7

Ksi7 3.9 1.1 1.1

Ksi8 3.6 1.0 0.9

Ksi9 3.7 1.1 1.2

Ksi10 3.6 1.0 1.1

Ksi11 4.0 0.9 0.7

Ksi12 4.0 1.0 0.9

3.3 Water 3.6 0.1 0.01 0.80

Ksi13 3.5 1.3 1.8

Ksi14 3.6 1.0 1.0

Ksi15 3.7 1.1 1.1

Ksi16 3.7 1.0 0.9

Ksi17 3.5 1.1 1.3

Ksi18 3.8 1.1 1.2

3.4 Sustainable food 3.7 0.2 0.04 0.75

Ksi19 3.8 1.0 1.0

Ksi20 3.9 1.1 1.2

Ksi21 3.5 1.1 1.2

3.5 Corporate social responsibility 3.7 0.2 0.03 0.83

Ksi22 3.6 0.8 0.7

Ksi23 3.4 1.0 1.0

Ksi24 3.7 1.0 0.9

Ksi25 3.9 0.8 0.6

Ksi26 3.8 0.9 0.8

3.6 Greening 3.5 0.44 0.2 First trial:

0.46

Second

trial: 0.6

excluding

Ksi30

Ksi27 3.7 0.9 0.8

Ksi28 3.0 1.4 2.1

Ksi29 3.9 1.1 1.1

Ksi30 3.2 1.3 1.7

Ksi31 3.9 0.8 0.6

4. Innovation importance 3.7 0.3 01 0.62




78

knowledge

Ik1 3.9 0.9 0.7

Ik2 4.2 0.8 0.6

Ik3 3.9 1.0 0.9

Ik4 3.5 1.2 1.3

Ik5 3.5 1.0 1.1

Ik6 3.3 1.1 1.3

Note: The following Likert-type scale: 1=strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree,

5=strongly disagree was used.

Work-life balance measures were also mostly agreed by the hotel executives (Table 2) since the

overall all mean was 4.4 and the standard deviation was 0.1. This result was partially highlighted

in research of Mohamed (2015) who empirically investigated the stress factors in a sample of

Egyptian hotels in Cairo and Alexandria and she recommend to decrease the stress factors. This

research argued that getting a balanced life and work is more connected to the stability and then

innovation is easy to come afterwards.

As we can also see in Table 2 that the mangers of investigated hotels were aware and committed

to use practices of sustainability in their hotels in relation to energy, water, waste, sustainable

food ,corporate social responsibility and greening (overall mean was 3.9, 3.8,3.6,3.7, 3.7, 3.5

respectively).

Not to miss the level of awareness to the importance of the innovation is in the selected hotel

sample. The descriptive results in Table 2 showed a fair percent of this knowledge since the

overall mean score was 3.7 with a variance score of 0.2.

Testing the research hypotheses

Conformity factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS 20 used to test the first hypothesis that the

perceived innovation is a multidimensional concept. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) using

AMOS is employed to test the null hypothesis in which estimates equals zero of these

relationships between the latent (non-observed) factors as shown in Figure 3. The multiple

model-fit indices as shown in Figure 3 were: (Chi-square =572, GFI=.87, CFI=.93, SRMR=.005,

RMSEA=.081). Generally, all the model fit indices were statistically acceptable. The

measurement model showed high factor loadings ranging from 0.51 to 0.95. The observed

variables were decent indicators of their particular latent variables. The composite reliability

(CR) was also performed by AMOS to test the internal consistency of the perceived innovation

scale as recommended by Byrne (2016). CR is recommended to be more than 0.60. The Four -

sub scales of the perceived innovation construct fulfilled the criteria of Byrne (2016) with CR

ranging from 0.62 to 0.86.

Moreover , Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test of sampling adequacy was 0.758 (Table 3) which

indicating a good acceptance (Hair et al., 2010). Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant at (p

< 0.05) that means the R-matrix is not an identity matrix; therefore, there are some relationships

between the variables, which have been explored in CFA. As a result, these conditions to

conduct EFA were partially met without looking to the factor loadings and communalities to

improve the pattern matrix and prepare it for CFA since there are no single-item indicators.

Structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis was finally employed to test the other research

hypotheses. Results indicated that the hypothesized model fit the data (Chi-square = 840.102, χ2

/df =26, GFI = .86, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .08, SRMR =.02). Standardized path coefficients (β)




79

were considered to determine the effect size of the path among constructs. T- values of the

standardized path coefficients are considered significant if its value is more than 1.96 (Hair et al.,

2010). Therefore, the standardized path coefficients with t-values and P-value related to the

aforementioned hypotheses are presented in Table 4. The demographic factor of age was only

negatively correlated to the perceived innovation factor because the estimated structural path was

-0.37, however, the P-value of this factor was significant.

Figure 3: The multidimensional model of the perceived innovation using the oblique factor

model by AMOS

Note: 1= Product/service innovation; 2= Process innovation; 3= Managerial innovation; 4= Marketing

innovation.

Model fit indices summary:

Chi-square = 572.329 SRMR= .005

Degrees of freedom = 48 RMSEA= .081

Probability level = .081 NFI= .91 CFI= .93 GFI= .87

CMIN/DF= 2.263 PCFI= .65 PNFI = .63 PCLOSE= .08




80

Table 3: Results of KMO analysis of the pilot study

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. 0.758

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 3005.2920

df 78

Sig. .000

An examination of the path coefficients and the related P-value to assess the relationship among

the dependent factor of perceived innovation and predictors revealed that all the predictors have

a strong effect on the perceived innovation. The next paragraph will be elaborated upon this in an

ascending way. First, work-life balance and perceived innovation revealed that work-life balance

has a direct positive effect on perceived innovation. The path coefficient between them is (0.56)

with a high significance P-value (P<0.001). This highly significant (P <0.001) path coefficient

provide an evidence to reject the null hypothesis which means that there is no relationship exists

and indicated that work-life balance has a positive direct effect on perceived innovation. Second,

the path coefficient between innovation importance knowledge and the perceived innovation is

(0.42) with a high significance P-value (P<0.001). This highly significant (P <0.001) path

coefficient provided an evidence to reject the null hypothesis (there is no relationships) and

indicated that innovation importance knowledge has a positive direct effect on the perceived

innovation. Third, the path coefficient between key sustainable indicators and the perceived

innovation is (0.40) with a high significance P-value (P<0.001). This highly significant (P

<0.001) path coefficient offered an evidence to reject the null hypothesis and showed that key

sustainable indicators has a positive direct effect on the perceived innovation.

Fourth, the path coefficient between the first demographic factor which is the marital status and

the perceived innovation is (0.39) with a high significance P-value (P<0.001). This highly

significant (P <0.001) path coefficient showed an evidence to reject the null hypothesis and

indicated that marital status has a positive direct effect on the perceived innovation.

Finally, the path coefficient between the other demographic factors of level of education, gender

and age and the perceived innovation is (0.27, 0.36,-0.37) respectively with a high significance

P-value (P= 0.000). These path coefficients provided an evidence to reject the null hypothesis

and indicated that these demographic factors have an effect either positive or negative on the

perceived innovation as shown in Table 4.

The strength of the relationship between the research variables was ensured since the result of

(R) was (0.46) in AMOS output, (R2) = (0.46) and (F) value = 851.981 which is more significant

(0.000) at 0.05 level. The accuracy of predicted value was also confirmed from the value of

standard error of estimates that was more significant. These results are in accordance with

previous research (Barney, 1991; McCarraher and Daniels, 2000; Harrington and Ladge, 2009;

Anderson et al., 2014; Bilgihan and Nejad, 2015; Nieves and Diaz-Meneses, 2016; Omerzel,

2016; Pikkemaat and Zehrer, 2016; Sanjeev and Bandyopadhyay, 2016).




81

Figure 4: The structural model using SEM by AMOS

Note: e1:e8=error terms (residuals). Model fit indices summary:

Chi-square = 840.102 CMIN/DF= 32.312 NFI= .90 CFI= .93 GFI=. 86

Degrees of freedom = 26 SRMR= .02 PCFI= .80 PNFI = .81 PCLOSE= .03

Probability level = .000 RMSEA= .08

Table 4: Results of testing research hypotheses

Hypotheses Path

estimates

SE t-value P Null

hypothesis

Interpretation

H.2 0.56 0.07 4.26 *** Rejected Work-life balance has a positive

direct effect on innovation (effect

size = .56 )

H.3 0.42 0.05 3.56 *** Rejected Innovation importance

knowledge has a positive direct

effect on innovation (effect size =

.42 )

H.4 0.40 0.06 4.56 *** Rejected Key sustainable indicators has a

positive direct effect on

innovation (effect size = .40 )

H.5-1 0.39 0.05 5.81 *** Rejected Marital status has a positive


size = .39 )

H.5-2 0.27 0.05 4.64 *** Rejected Education level has a positive


size = .27)

H.5-3 0.36 0.04 4.11 *** Rejected Gender has a positive direct




82

effect on innovation (effect size =

.36)

H.5-4 -0.37 0.03 4.23 *** Rejected Age has indirect effect on

innovation (effect size = -.37 )

Note: SE = Standard Error of Estimates

Conclusion, Limitations and Directions for Future Research Innovation in the hotel sector fair enough attention from both researchers and practitioners

however, this multidimensional concept still hopes further exploration due to the lack in the

previous literature on innovation in tourism in general as recently declared by Omerzel (2016).

The innovation concept was not fully empirically tested neither in the hospitality nor in the hotel

sector which push the scholars to understand this concept in an isolated ways as highlighted by

Gopalakrishnan and Damanpour (1997).Therefore, getting full consensus of the meaning of

innovation did not achieved yet.

Regardless of the innovation probable importance, it has not attracted considerable attention in

the Egyptian hotel business predominantly because it is difficult to measure in one hand and it

has many unsettled predictors and outcomes on the other hand. Hereafter, this research aimed to

develop first a conceptual model of innovation key determinants and outcomes (see Figure 2) to

help hotel managers to better manage the innovation process. The theoretical foundations of this

conceptual framework are based on the Attitude –behaviour of Ajzen and Fishbein (1980)

theory. Second, this research highlighted the importance of perceived innovation among a

sample of hotel managers in Cairo and Sharm El Sheikh based in Egypt. Furthermore new

determinants and indicators to the innovation in hotels (work-life balance; key sustainable

indicators usage; innovation importance knowledge; demographic factors) were first, to date,

researched and tested in the Egyptian hotel sector in relation to the perceived innovation.

Five main hypotheses and four sub hypotheses had been structured and then tested in this

research. All of them were accepted based on the statistics generated from SEM using AMOS.

The main findings of this empirical study that was performed in a sample of 450 hotel managers

in 55 five-star hotel in Cairo and Sharm El-Shiekh of Egypt confirmed the measurement model

and the conceptual framework (Figure 2). The dimensionality nature of the perceived innovation

concept was guaranteed due to the oblique factor model in Figure 3. Work –life balance has

been got the highest effect on the perceived innovation (see Figure 4) followed by the innovation

importance knowledge predictor, key sustainable indicators, the four demographic factors

respectively.

This study has some limitations as it was designed for upscale hotels in Egypt and was restricted

to Cairo and Sharm El-Sheikh five–star hotels. Therefore, further research may investigate the

proposed model in other hotel categories or in the restaurant sector. Also it is useful to involve

all hotel staff positions into account rather than the management level.

Further research will be needed to gain better support for the proposed final model especially in a

comparative study between different hotel employees in different hotels and in different

countries, regarding their level of management might be of paramount to be considered for

further research. As well as studying the entire innovation predictors and their relationship to

innovation behaviour.

Giving that, the limited amount of research available on the innovation behaviour in the hotel

industry has limited the opportunity to gather content-rich information from previous studies.

Additionally, this study used different scales to measure innovation behaviour and its key




83

determinants as there was no one composite scale for each of them. Therefore, the validation of

innovation scale or its predictors were based entirely on hotel managers of whom psychometric

properties of the used scales may not be generalizable to different positions. For that reason,

further validation of this study measures requires the use of samples from diverse occupations

across different sub-cultures in the region. Further research may include some control and

context variables such as hotel ownership type, position level, experience level that were not

included in this research.

In this study, through a cross-sectional survey that was distributed and collected in about two

months (from 15 November 2015 to 27 January 2016), a number of models were tested.

However, a longitudinal study is suggested to further explore this issue

Acknowledgement

This research would not be completed unless getting enough support from the hotel management

participated sample and their helpful staff. Sincere appreciations and thanks are due to the

respected reviewers of the international journal of heritage, tourism, and hospitality for their

useful inputs. Finally I dedicate this research to my family, my beloved wife and my kind kids; I

know that I could not have been successful in this without their encouragement so thank you.

References Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour, Prentice-Hall,

London.

Anderson, N., Potočnik, K. and Zhou, J. (2014), “Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-

the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework”, Journal of Management,

Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 1297–1333.

Anthonisz, A. (2014), “Assessing the future of housekeeping operations in Dubai’s five-star hotel

industry – room for innovation?” , Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp.

352–361.

Artič, N. (2013), “Open innovation as a chance to overcome economic crisis in hotel industry”, available

at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2289352 (accessed 14 January 2016).

Badewi, A. (2016), “Investigating benefits realisation process for enterprise resource planning systems”,

available at: https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/handle/1826/9719.

Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management, Vol.

17 No. 1, pp. 99–120.

Bilgihan, A. and Nejad, M. (2015), “Innovation in hospitality and tourism industries”, Journal of

Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 6 No. 3.

Brown, J., Elliott, S., Christensen-Hughes, J., Lyons, S., Mann, S. and Zdaniuk, A. (2011), “Using human

resource management (HRM) practices to improve productivity in the Canadian tourism sector”,

Electronic Article, University of Guelph, pp1-15.

.Byrne, B.M. (2016), Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and

programming, Routledge.

Campo, S., M. Díaz, A. and J. Yagüe, M. (2014), “Hotel innovation and performance in times of crisis”,

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 1292–1311.

Chen, S.C., Raab, C. and Tanford, S. (2017), “Segmenting customers by participation: An innovative path

to service excellence”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29

No. 5, pp. 1468–1485.

Clark, S.C. (2000), “Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance”, Human

Relations, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 747–770.

Davila, T., Epstein, M.J. and Shelton, R.D. (2006), Making innovation work: How to manage It, measure

It, and profit from It, Wharton School Pub, Upper Saddle River, N.J.

https://www.facebook.com/jofth2006/?ref=page_internal




84

Dex, S. and Bond, S. (2005), “Measuring work-life balance and its covariates”, Work, Employment and

Society, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 627–637.

EHA. (2016), “Egyptian Hotel Association”, Available at: http://egyptianhotels.com.

Gay, L.R. and Diehl, P.L. (1992), Research methods for business and management, Macmillan Publishing

Company.

Gopalakrishnan, S. and Damanpour, F. (1997), “A review of innovation research in economics, sociology

and technology management”, Omega, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 15–28.

Hair, J.F., Black, W., Babin, B. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate data analysis: A Global

Perspective, 7th ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J,USA.

Harrington, B. and Ladge, J.J. (2009), “Work–life integration: present dynamics and future directions for

organizations”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 148–157.

Hjalager, A.-M. (2010), “A review of innovation research in tourism”, Tourism Management, Vol. 31 No.

1, pp. 1–12.

Hu, B.A. and Cai, L.A. (2004), “Hotel labor productivity assessment”, Journal of Travel & Tourism

Marketing, Vol. 16, pp. 27–38.

Jayawardena, C., Jarvis, J., Adams, K., Lu, Z. and Tyrewala, A. (2013), “Innovations in hotel

administration in Canada”, Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 164–

176.

Johnson, D. (2001), “What is innovation and entrepreneurship? Lessons for larger organisations”,

Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 135–140.

Kessler, A., Pachucki, C., Stummer, K., Mair, M. and Binder, P. (2015), “Types of organizational

innovativeness and success in Austrian hotels”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality

Management, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 1707–1727.

Kim, H.K. (2014), “Work-life balance and employees’ performance: The mediating role of affective

commitment”, Global Business and Management Research, Vol. 6 No. 1, p. 37.

Kozlenkova, I.V., Samaha, S.A. and Palmatier, R.W. (2014), “Resource-based theory in marketing”,

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 1–21.

McCarraher, L. and Daniels, L. (2000), The Work–Life Manual, London, UK: The Industrial Society.

McCarthy, M.E. (2001), “Exploring the impact of blurred boundaries in teleworkers.”, available at:

http://dalspace.library.dal.ca/bitstream/handle/10222/55780/NQ66651.PDF?

sequence=1.

Mish, F.C. (1986), “Webster’s ninth new collegiate dictionary”, Springfield, MA.

Mohamed, L.M. (2015), “An exploratory study on the perceived work stress by individual characteristics:

The case of Egyptian hotels”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 25, pp. 11–

18.

Muller, E. and Zenker, A. (2001), “Business services as actors of knowledge transformation: the role of

KIBS in regional and national innovation systems”, Research Policy, Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 1501–

1516.

Nieves, J. and Diaz-Meneses, G. (2016), “Antecedents and outcomes of marketing innovation: An

empirical analysis in the hotel industry”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality

Management, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 1554–1576.

Omerzel, D. (2016), “A systematic review of research on innovation in hospitality and tourism”,

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 516–558.

Orfila-Sintes, F., Crespí-Cladera, R. and Martínez-Ros, E. (2005), “Innovation activity in the hotel

industry: Evidence from Balearic Islands”, Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 851–865.

Orfila-Sintes, F. and Mattsson, J. (2009), “Innovation behavior in the hotel industry”, Omega, Vol. 37 No.

2, pp. 380–394.

O’Sullivan, D. and Dooley, L. (2008), Applying Innovation, Sage publications, USA.

Pikkemaat, B. and Zehrer, A. (2016), “Innovation and service experiences in small tourism family firms”,

International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 343–360.




85

Sanjeev, G.M. and Bandyopadhyay, R. (2016), “Innovations in the Indian hospitality industry: an

overview”, Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 408–415.

Schumpeter, J.A. (1951), Essays: on entrepreneurs, innovations, business cycles, and the evolution of

capitalism, Transaction Publishers.

Schwarzkopf, C.(2016),“Fostering Innovation and entrepreneurship”,Springer, Germany.

Sen, K. and Kaushik, T. (2016), “Recent innovative measures across different functions in the Indian

hospitality industry: A case study from Accor Hotels”, Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism

Themes, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 481–489.

Sloan, P., Legrand, W. and Chen, J.S. (2013), Sustainability in the Hospitality Industry: Principles of

Sustainable Operations, Routledge.

Sloan, P., Legrand, W., Tooman, H. and Fendt, J. (2009), “Best practices in sustainability: German and

Estonian hotels”, Advances in Hospitality and Leisure, Vol. 5, pp. 89–107.

Vila, M., Enz, C. and Costa, G. (2012), “Innovative practices in the Spanish hotel industry”, Cornell

Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 75–85.

Walsh, K., Chang, S. and Tse, E.C.-Y. (2015), “Understanding students’ intentions to join the hospitality

industry: The role of emotional intelligence, service orientation, and industry satisfaction”,

Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 369–382.

Weidenfeld, A. (2013), “Tourism and cross border regional innovation systems”, Annals of Tourism

Research, Vol. 42, pp. 191–213.

Winroth, M., Almström, P. and Andersson, C. (2012), “Sustainable indicators at factory level-a

framework for practical assessment”, IIE Annual Conference. Proceedings, Institute of Industrial

Engineers-Publisher, p. 1.

Zhang, Q. and Chin, L. (2012), “The Attractive Experience on sustainable Tourism in Huangshan Star-

Scaled Hotels”, International Journal of Future Computer and Communication, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp.

252–255.

Zientara, P., Bohdanowicz, P. and Schott, C. (2010), “The hospitality sector: Corporate social

responsibility and climate change”, Tourism and the Implications of Climate Change: Issues and

Actions, pp. 91–111.

Appendix1

1. Perceived innovation behaviour.

i1: We often are the first to introduce a new product (service) to the market

i2: We often create and sell products whose functions are completely new

i3: We often create and sell products that are new in both style and service

i4: The hotel invests in the development of new creative products

i5: The hotel always gets the first position among competitors to introduce new methods of production

i6: The hotel seeks to use new techniques in marketing, technology and management

i7: Our services matches our guest expectations

i8: Our standard enables staff to be more efficient to raise quality and standards

i9: The hotel develops new events to use of new research based knowledge

i10: We institute new forms of collaborative/organizational structure such as alliances, clusters and networks

i11: The hotel uses new ways of organising business processes

i12: The hotel improves the workplace satisfaction

i13: The hotel compensates good work

i14: The hotel invests in R&D initiatives

i15: The hotel innovates in marketing by using loyalty programs

2. Work –life balance scale measures

W1: I have to change my life plans because of work stress

W2: I could not get entertained with my family in my spare times due to my work in this hotel

W3: my ability of family matters decreases due to my work here in this hotel

W4: I often work late or at weekends to deal with paperwork without interruptions

W5: My family are missing out on my input, either because I don’t see enough of them/am too tired

W6: My relationship with my partner/ family is suffering because of the pressure or long hours of my work




86

W7: Relaxing and forgetting about work issues is hard to do

3. Usage of sustainability indicators

4. Innovation importance knowledge

Ik1: Developing and applying new products or ideas add value to this hotel

Ik2: Innovation has a positive impact on hotel performance

Ik3: Creating new products , ideas, processes ensure a hotel competitive advantage

Ik4: Newness helps to meet our guest expectations

Ik5: Practicing innovation helps to meet the quality standards

Ik6: Future sales are related to marketing innovations

5. Demographic factors

Age: Ratio variable in categorical stance( 1=20-34, 2= 35-44, 3= 45-55, 4= 56 and over)

Gender: Nominal variable(1=male,2=female)

Marital status: Nominal variable(1=single ,2=married, 3=divorced, 4= widower)

Level of education: Nominal variable(1=secondary school,2=college diploma/professional qualifications, 3=

undergraduate degree, 4= postgraduate degree,5= others)

The used Likert-type scale: 1=strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=strongly disagree.

3.1 Energy

Ksi1

Ksi2

Ksi3

Ksi4

The hotel uses occupancy sensors\key card

The hotel uses LED lighting

The hotel uses solar panels

Energy saving equipment are used in the hotel

3.2 Waste

Ksi5

Ksi6

Ksi7

Ksi8

Ksi9

Ksi10

Ksi11

Ksi12

Hotel uses paperless technology

We are reusing printed paper, guest soaps

We are refilling cartridge

Hotel recycles its materials and products

Hotel uses an alternative for paper towels in hand washing

Hotel uses biodegradable plastic bag

Hotel uses environmentally friendly materials

We are sorting the waste separately

3.3 Water

Ksi13 The hotel has water toilets of low- volume

The hotel has low flow toilets and showerheads

The hotel uses the rainwater in harvesting

The hotel uses grey water for irrigation

Washing machines uses electromagnetic washing cards

The hotel supports water saving campaigns in the kitchen , room service and laundry

Ksi14

Ksi15

Ksi16

Ksi17

Ksi18

3.4 Sustainable food

Ksi19 The hotel depends on local food sources

The hotel uses organic food and beverages

Menus are based on ingredients that are in season. Ksi20

Ksi21

3.5 Corporate social responsibility

Ksi22 The management supports equal employment opportunity

The hotel invests more in employee training

The hotel gives financial support for the local community

The hotel donates for saving community against crises

The hotel involves community in nature saving program

Ksi23

Ksi24

Ksi25

Ksi26

3.6 Greening

Ksi27 The hotel buys products from green supplier

The hotel uses green chemical products

The hotel wins green certification

The hotel providing at least one vegetarian meal on the menu

Encouraging employees to ride bicycles to work instead of driving cars

Ksi28

Ksi29

Ksi30

Ksi31

Page 92 of

Documents